[W:139]Corsi: I lied and I'm ready to Die in Jail

[roughdraft274]

When did he perjure himself?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

He sent in a sworn statement that he had no idea about the meeting in Trump tower that included Russians, his son, son in law and campaign manager while he was in the same building. I'm saying that every person with two brain cells should know he's lying when he says that.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

But leaked classified information can’t be used either right, it’s obtained illegally, so who is dodging.
If you can’t use one, then you can’t use the other, but it’s normal hypocrisy from liberals


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Specifically, which leaked classified information can't be used, and specifically, who is it that cannot use it?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

LOL, nonsense. Obama was "divisive" to Americans with racial resentment "issues". That's it. He did nothing to "divide", other than exist and serve honorably as the only POTUS since the 19th century to serve 2 complete terms without a single major (i.e. legitimate) ethical or moral scandal. He was, quite literally, the modern-day Jackie Robinson of American presidential politics. Unfortunately, most of his most fervent detractors were motivated by the darker forces of human nature.

Translation: "We never wanted one of those 'negroes' in the White House, and now that he is, we feel he has divided America."

I burn your traitorous insurgent flag and will happily crap on the graves of your traitorous heroes.
I do not apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.

 

[ultmd]

Translation: "We never wanted one of those 'negroes' in the White House, and now that he is, we feel he has divided America."

I burn your traitorous insurgent flag and will happily crap on the graves of your traitorous heroes.
I do not apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.

View attachment 67245136

Yep, that pretty much sums it up.

Most of the anti-Obama outrage (from birtherism.....to allegations of "divisiveness".....and everything in-between) was always little more than sequentially contrived and thinly-veiled rationalizations from bigoted, angry white guys who lacked the stones to say what they were really thinking and/or the intellectual chops to defend what they were really thinking.

 

[jnug]

As far as I can tell the guy that leaked anything is Corsi.

As for lies, how many do we want to talk about. As to the specific sets of lies in this case, Corsi was emailing Stone and Stone was replying both of them back and forth regarding the Russian email hack and when Wikileaks would drop them. Corsi has since claimed that he had no foreknowledge of the hack or the Wikileaks drop but that he instead divined the drop all they way down to the details of who's emails they were going to drop, Karnak the Magnificent style. so I would say that Mr Corsi has much to worry about. Again we only know as much as this because Corsi took the draft indictment and has been showing it to anybody that would look at it then providing his own rational for his Interview statements and the Draft Indictment including the Karnak the Magnificent act.

I swear to God Mueller is dealing with Batman style villains. They are that stupid. I think Corsi fits the Penguin perfectly. In fact give me a few minutes and I will likely have the rest of the cast.
Corsi = The Penguin
Flynn = Two Face
Stone = The Riddler
Manafort = The Joker
Cohen, Don't have one yet. Fell free to chime in

There are others I am sure

 

[trouble13]

He sent in a sworn statement that he had no idea about the meeting in Trump tower that included Russians, his son, son in law and campaign manager while he was in the same building. I'm saying that every person with two brain cells should know he's lying when he says that.

If he sent is a sworn statement to that effect and there is evidence to contradict it, I agree with you.

If he lied under oath as much as I like him I would support his removal. I need to see the proof though

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Conaeolos]

....a more eloquent way to whine about "the emails ....the emails than this crowd can usually make...... Transparent none the less.

You think I am referring to prosecuting Hillary Clinton for the email server thing? haha. That's like bringing up Bill on his Lewinsky purgery case. It may set a character narrative but those "crimes" could only be political if pursued at this point.

Nope. I refer to a real "Russia-gate"[illegal deals with foreign governments], electoral fraud & abuse of executive power. The public microscope is so looking at the wrong suspects as it currently refuses to follow the evidence but instead a fantastical political narrative….Look objectively and broadly there is no doubt a paper trial, there is damning hard evidence. No conjecture needed. And clear selective prosecution and glaring and willful conflicts of intrest…. The question only remains is there the will to talk about it in the public light considering the fallout on faith in current establishment?
I don't know, but history generally will bring the facts to light eventually.

As it stands. To follow the "Trump/Russian" narrative - you have assume some "facts" in need of bold proof: wikileaks is a Russian front/or was used thusly, unkind truths being revealed in coordination with the other foreign linked activities constitutes anything resembling election interference, that blatant and avoidable conflicts of intreats were necessary, that the connections between prosecution & information sources isn't tainted, that there is no selective prosecution; and most difficult: that the evidence of the time justified the action to investigate "trump campaign" during an election was legal, justified and not influenced by Hillary campaign.

It's a steep hill to climb. Maybe Muller will, maybe the report will be damning….but as of what we know, it is looking like a weak report [mildly politically damaging] that does not follow the evidence but is no doubt enough to start a broader investigation which will not end well for those involved and goes far beyond Hillary's wrong doings, let alone just the chanrge of having a very suspcious private server.

On the subject of those leaked emails though they did outline election tampering in the primary/election; however, and that is not without implications in an objective investigation of the totallity of this election cycle and the misdoings there in.

 

[jnug]

You think I am referring to prosecuting Hillary Clinton for the email server thing? haha. That's like bringing up Bill on his Lewinsky purgery case. It may set a character narrative but those "crimes" could only be political if pursued at this point.

Nope. I refer to a real "Russia-gate"[illegal deals with foreign governments], electoral fraud & abuse of executive power. The public microscope is so looking at the wrong suspects as it currently refuses to follow the evidence but instead a fantastical political narrative….Look objectively and broadly there is no doubt a paper trial, there is damning hard evidence. No conjecture needed. And clear selective prosecution and glaring and willful conflicts of intrest…. The question only remains is there the will to talk about it in the public light considering the fallout on faith in current establishment?
I don't know, but history generally will bring the fact to light eventually.

As it stands. To follow the "Trump/Russian" narrative - you have assume some "facts" in need of bold proof: wikileaks is a Russian front/or was used thusly, unkind truths being revealed in coordination with the other foreign linked activities constitutes anything resembling election interference, that blatant and avoidable conflicts of intreats were necessary, that the connections between prosecution & information sources isn't tainted, that there is no selective prosecution; and most difficult: that the evidence of the time justified the action to investigate "trump campaign" during an election was legal, justified and not influenced by Hillary campaign.

It's a steep hill to climb. Maybe Muller will, maybe the report will be damning….but as of what we know, it's looking like a weak report [mildly polically damaging] that does not follow the evidence but is no doubt enough to start a broader investigation which will no end well for those involved and goes far beyond Hillary's wrong doings, let alone just the chanrge of having a very suspcious private server.

On those leaked emaisl though did outline election tampering in the Primary/election; however, and that is not without signigant implications in a broader investigation of the totallity of the matter.

I have often said in these pages that Trump's abuses of power post election make the pre-election stuff pale by comparison. So there....ya' got me!

 

[roughdraft274]

If he sent is a sworn statement to that effect and there is evidence to contradict it, I agree with you.

If he lied under oath as much as I like him I would support his removal. I need to see the proof though

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

I agree, we would need proof to remove him from office. But as a matter of practicality, I think we all know with with as much certainty as one can have that he is lying when he said he had no idea about that meeting. Or that he had no idea that Roger Stone was trying to contact Wikileaks. That dog don't hunt. Even his supporters know he's lying even if they won't admit it.

 

[Conaeolos]

I have often said in these pages that Trump's abuses of power post election make the pre-election stuff pale by comparison. So there....ya' got me!

The only suspicious thing the current evidence actually has on Trump is on "conflict of interest" and does his extensive business interests conflict with his public duties? It's a huge problem mostly created by going strait to presidential office from the private sector. If this whole thing was a smart and/or above board that is where they would have looked….

You might even have some interesting things worth following there….yet nothing too egregious from what I've seen. Maybe that is the issue.

I doubt you have a case for anything outside that - from everything I read on the daily - it all legal maneuvering based on weak-assumptions and conjecture. Nothing that comes close to meeting a reasonable standard.

But if you like to pretend there is no selective prosecution and investigation ongoing in all this and trump is somehow acting the sabtour. You be my guest…it takes only a few searches and reading of history to break the narrative and see more sides. It's doing you no favour not to see both sides in any disputed issue...a legal defence is always far more telling than a "police" report.

 

[trouble13]

I agree, we would need proof to remove him from office. But as a matter of practicality, I think we all know with with as much certainty as one can have that he is lying when he said he had no idea about that meeting. Or that he had no idea that Roger Stone was trying to contact Wikileaks. That dog don't hunt. Even his supporters know he's lying even if they won't admit it.

I'm gonna be completely honest about this. I have never run for a political office nor worked on a staff. Dont know if I had for a lower office it's the same as a presidential election. I am ignorant of how it works. What trump knew and what he did not is a total mystery to me.

Without any bias I tell you I honestly need proof and without it I extend him the same benefit of doubt that I would be given if his name was Hillary Clinton.

I dont support nonsense investigations that are used more as distractions than actual fact finding expirations. I dont support elected officials not giving their full cooperation to clear up what hsppened.

We live in a place so far removed from that I dont know who to believe about any of it. I'm waiting for the dust to settle and I will make up mind after the facts come out.

I'm not gonna defend or convict trump until they lay their cards on the table. I refuse to be sucked into the public manipulation that both sides are being sucked into.

I am concentious observer hoping trump is who I think he is.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[MrShangles]

Specifically, which leaked classified information can't be used, and specifically, who is it that cannot use it?

James Comey leaked information to a friend so they could start the Russian investigation.
But on another point, what do you think about the Panama papers that makes it ok to use stolen information as long as you didn’t steal the information you’re self.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

James Comey leaked information to a friend so they could start the Russian investigation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timel...and_Russia_(2017)#2017_–_Trump_administration

But on another point, what do you think about the Panama papers that makes it ok to use stolen information as long as you didn’t steal the information you’re self.

I don't know enough about the Panama Papers case and it's something that should be handled in its own thread, so why bring it up now? Is Mueller in charge of that, too?

Again, are you attempting to state that all charges against Trump must be dropped because of something you think Comey did that you think was illegal?

 

[MrShangles]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timel...and_Russia_(2017)#2017_–_Trump_administration


I don't know enough about the Panama Papers case and it's something that should be handled in its own thread, so why bring it up now? Is Mueller in charge of that, too?

Again, are you attempting to state that all charges against Trump must be dropped because of something you think Comey did that you think was illegal?

Looks like I need to slow it down for you.
1- you said the information couldn’t be used because it was illegally stolen.
2- I said Comey illegally leaked classified information to get the investigation started
3- I said if I can’t rely on illegally gained information then you can’t use illegally given information



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Looks like I need to slow it down for you.
1- you said the information couldn’t be used because it was illegally stolen.

Where did I ever say that?

2- I said Comey illegally leaked classified information to get the investigation started
3- I said if I can’t rely on illegally gained information then you can’t use illegally given information



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

So now you're claiming that James Comey committed a crime, illegally accessing servers or other devices?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

2- I said Comey illegally leaked classified information to get the investigation started

I referred you to the timeline of the investigation.
Find the entry that shows that it all started with Comey's supposedly illegally obtained information, and show me why that information was classified, bearing in mind that Comey is or was FBI, hence law enforcement.

You do understand that law enforcement isn't bound by the rules on classified information the same way you and I are, yes?

 

[RAMOSS]

Also that he had no idea that his campaign manager, son and son in law were meeting russians regarding dirt on Hillary Clinton. He claims he had no idea. In sworn testimony. Everyone on earth with two brain cells to rub together now knows the president has purjured himself.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

That's probably why he is waving a pardon for Manafort, and claiming he has damaging documents on Democrats .. Those are not actions of an innocent man.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Mr. Shangles is under the impression that the entire Russia case would not have happened had it not been for James Comey illegally obtaining classified information and leaking it.

To whom did he "leak" this information?

Trump's personal attorney Marc Kasowitz criticized Comey for leaking the contents of his memos to the press, saying that they were "unauthorized disclosures".[170] White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders also criticized Comey for leaking to the press and alleged that he broke the law. Sanders cited an article by the legal analyst Jonathan Turley which alleged that Comey broke his employment agreement and FBI protocol.[171]

Has James Comey been charged with a crime? I must have missed that.

 

[BrainNebula]

This is very interesting. Mueller is tricking Trump's lawyers using the bag man and the coffee boy!



Key Mueller witness: I lied and I'm ready to die in jail

So the title is very misleading and paints a false picture of what Corsi said. I encourage people to watch the interview. He says that his lie wasn't actually a lie but was a tactic commonly used in politics that have been taught to him in his education about public relations. He was basically reframing the subject. And Ari Melber had to specifically state that he wasn't talking about a crime when questioning Corsi on this subject, because what Cosri said wasn't a crime. Corsi also went on to talk about other issues such as how he wasn't being fed information from WikiLeaks, he simply figured out who they were going to leak about. He didn't know for sure, but through his deduction, he was pretty sure he was right. Like I said, watch the actual interview. Corsi does not admit to wrongdoing.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Did James Comey violate federal laws?

Let me know when they slap the cuffs on Comey. Lots of Republicans still in power, so you can't claim that evil libruls are preventing it.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Still think you need to "slow things down for me", Shangles?

 

[roughdraft274]

That's probably why he is waving a pardon for Manafort, and claiming he has damaging documents on Democrats .. Those are not actions of an innocent man.

Almost none of his actions seem like that of an innocent man.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Well, as of this writing, twenty-five minutes have passed since Mr. Shangles implied that the entire Comey-Mueller investigation is invalid and unusable because, according to him, Comey illegally leaked a memo to the press, about a conversation with Trump concerning Comey's "loyalty" rating, and that it all started with Comey's leak to begin with.

He then went on to compare me illegally accessing HIS (Shangles) devices to the head of the FBI leaking a conversation memo, something for which Comey has yet to be criminally charged for. (wonder why)

And now he's on radio silence. But he thinks he needs to slow things down for me. :lamo

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Searching for Mr. Shangles, has anyone seen him?
Maybe he went on another Carnival Cruise.